Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: As a whole Cambodia is rated low for species rarity and diversity (per data included in survey resources). However, per EoI, areas proposed have numerous endangered and critically endangered species.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Moderate indication of irrecoverable carbon. Illegal logging and other deforestation pressures form increasing population impact area ability to mitigate climate change.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Some communities within the areas have received formal title. Areas are largely under IPLC traditional governance systems, but appear to require significant skill support connect traditional practice to official governing systems.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Cultural significance is acknowledged and described, but more detail would strengthen impact of project activities to cultural practice.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Multiple interrelated threats increase overall threat level. Lack of recognition of IPLC rights, illegal logging and over exploitation, overpopulation due to migration, weak government presence and capacity for enforcement of laws are indicated. IPLC land titling and rights is major focus of project.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Strategies, acts and laws relating to IPLC land and use rights are described. More detail on the constrains would be useful. Information on IPLC land titling is more detailed. Land laws recognize the right of IPLCs to obtain title to their lands. Process outlined appears extremely burdensome for IPLCs without support. Weak capacity of government to apply and enforce laws and policies is cited as a threat
Evidence B:Limited by land grabbing that takes place
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: See Q.6 above. There is a legal framework for lad and use rights, but weak capacity in communities and in government hinders IPLC governance.
Evidence B:Limited by land grabbing that takes place
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Applicant organization has been working with IPLCs (51 communities) for 14 years in the proposed areas on land titling, eco-tourism, NTFPs and other livelihood projects and enforcement.
Evidence B:A few projects listed but not described. More information needs ot be given to the projects
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Applicant organization is in middle of 5 year grant from EU/WWF for $300kUSD primarily work on ICLP land titling. There are complementary projects indicated on land titling, eco-tourism and livelihood projects. No financial information is included. Projects included align well with project goals but limited information available.
Evidence B:List of projects but no information on whether they are still in implementation.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Approach is well aligned to great enabling conditions for improved GEBs. However GEB are an Outcome dependent on success of governance and livelihood related activities. This is a small area, so alone, global impact is low.
Evidence B:Logical approach to achieving goals
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Objectives are clear. Activities are very general and require a clear conceptual framework and log frame indicating how objectives are linked and how results will be achieved. Expected results are very ambitious. More work is needed to establish clear scope and purpose of activities.
Evidence B:The activities are strong (Q8) but some issues include: - the need to ensure sustainable practices particularly under Objective 3 - need to increase synergies with government stakeholders could be accomplished under Objective 1 through joint workshops
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: See Q. 3 above. Objectives and activities generally address threats and opportunities. However, activity descriptions are vague and overly ambitious. Full proposal would require much more work to establish short and long-term milestones for project and specific implementation plans and requirements for activities.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: This is a smaller scale project. No indication of overall budget included in EoI.
Evidence B:Could be more ambitious for that range of investment
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Only in-kind contributions from communities are included as potential co-financing
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Low. Area under improved management equals 52Kha of which 9Kha are indicated as under improved practice.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Indicators included are primarily livelihood based and not clearly linked to specific project goals.
Evidence B:Need to review the indicators if the proposal is further developed.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: None of the scoring options is adequate. EoI does address long-term sustainability, but assumptions of how this will be achieved are very general and long term. A more realistic vision for sustainability is needed.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Expected contributions of project to Cambodia’s NBSAP are clearly laid out in the EoI
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Gender issues are recognized, but described in terms of results, not concrete activities. More details on barriers and opportunities would strengthen a full proposal.
Evidence B:No clear targets set for gender mainstreaming
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Moderate potential due to vaguely defined and overly ambitious activities.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The EoI indicates that My Village is an IPLC organization. Unable to confirm if this is literally led by indigenous people or has a mission to work on behalf of IPLC. Named partner is also indicated to be an IPLC organization.. Other stated implementing partners appear to be committees and IPLC community groups within communities. IPLC capacity is key objective of the project. Impression from EoI is that this will be a significant task. There is indication of strong dependence on IPLC groups and committees for project action, with need to first build capacity of these groups.
Evidence B:Partnership is stronger than other projects reviewed in that funds are provided to the community groups.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Applicant organization has 17 years of experience in relevant areas. Another organization is identified as a partner, ICBO-GC founded in 2007, but no further information is provided on experience.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: See A.1 and B.2 above. ICBO is the only other NGO identified as a partner, other entities listed are community committees.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: No response included in EoI to Part 3. Q. 20 on skills and qualifications of applicant organization or partner. Website shown numerous relevant activities, but reviewer was not able to access information on skills or qualifications.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Responses indicate capacity, but no supporting information provided. Limited information on sources of finance to support response.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Topic of safeguards not addressed.
Evidence B:NA